Techdirt. Stories filed under "experts"Easily digestible tech news...https://www.techdirt.com/
en-usTechdirt. Stories filed under "experts"https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/td-88x31.gifhttps://www.techdirt.com/Thu, 9 Jul 2015 04:13:00 PDTFBI's James Comey: I Know All The Experts Insist Backdooring Encryption Is A Bad Idea, But Maybe It's Because They Haven't Really TriedMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150708/17034631585/fbis-james-comey-i-know-all-experts-insist-backdooring-encryption-is-bad-idea-maybe-because-they-havent-really-tried.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150708/17034631585/fbis-james-comey-i-know-all-experts-insist-backdooring-encryption-is-bad-idea-maybe-because-they-havent-really-tried.shtmlexpected, FBI Director James Comey appeared before two separate Senate Committees yesterday -- the Judiciary and the Intelligence Committees -- to talk about the "risks" of "going dark" if the government is not allowed to backdoor encryption. You can watch the Judiciary Committee hearing and the Intelligence Committee hearing at those two links. I'd embed the videos here on Techdirt as well, but I can't because (guess what?) neither offers an encrypted HTTPS version, so they wouldn't appear on our site, since we force HTTPS connections.

Most of Comey's comments were pretty much what you'd expect him to say, with a few clear themes repeated over and over again:

American ingenuity is great, so I don't really believe all these computer science experts who say that it's "too hard" to give the government access. I think they haven't really tried.

I don't have a proposal myself (which experts would ridicule for the problems it would create), but rather I'm just trying to "start a conversation" on this.

We have no data to actually support the fact that encrypted communication has become a real problem, but I can tell you scary stories about (boo!) ISIS.

That was about the crux of it. There were a few times where he would kind of admit that maybe, just maybe the computer scientists were right, but he still thinks they could try harder. The most ridiculous was where he literally said:

"Maybe the scientists are right. But, I’m not willing to give up on that yet."

Earlier in that same hearing, he said:

"A whole lot of good people have said it’s too hard … maybe that's so.... But my reaction to that is: I’m not sure they’ve really tried."

There are a few problems with all of this. First, he keeps claiming that people are saying it's "too hard." But they're not. They're saying it's impossible to give him what he wants without seriously undermining the basic foundations of private communications online. And that's not just private communications in the form of messaging, but also financial transactions, medical records, business dealings and the like. In short, the "solution" the FBI wants puts everyone at risk.

The second big problem is that it's fairly stunning that Comey keeps insisting that those bright minds in Silicon Valley can sprinkle some magic pixie dust and give him what he wants, but at the same time claims it's too difficult for the FBI to actually quantify how big a problem encryption is for its investigations. Furthermore, he can't even provide a single real world example for where encryption has been a real problem. Even when pushed on this, he noted that when the FBI comes across encrypted communications, they move on to other avenues to investigate those individuals. Which sounds a lot like encryption really isn't that big of a problem.

The lack of an actual proposal, and the idea that he's just "starting a conversation" is equally ridiculous, since this conversation was conducted twenty years ago and it was shown what a bad idea it was to backdoor encryption. The idea that we need to do this all over again is just stupid.

Two other quick comments: A few times Comey noted that some big companies are able to encrypt data, but still get access to the underlying content. He used this to argue that it's "possible." But he leaves out the fact that those are not end-to-end encryption, but something different entirely which is much less secure than end-to-end encryption. He's comparing two very different things without recognizing the massive trade off in security associated with what he's talking about. His technical ignorance -- which he underlined multiple times, is kind of bizarre. If he admits he's so ignorant, why does he brush off the arguments from people who have been in this field working on these issues for decades.

The other comment: multiple times he and some of the Senators hinted that the FBI actually stopped some sort of nefarious plot that was supposed to happen on July 4th weekend. As we noted, despite lots of hype on cable news, the FBI has been making these kinds of failed predictions ever since 9/11 without a single one turning out to be accurate. So it seemed curious that he and others kept hinting at the idea that the FBI had to work overtime last week to actually stop an attack. If true, then you'd think there would be an arrest somewhere, but nothing appears to have been announced. It seems likely that this was just more FUD, but we'll be curious to see if the FBI ever explains something that it actually did to prevent a real attack.

We'll likely have a few more posts about some of what was discussed at the hearing a little later. But it's not just troubling that Director Comey is pushing for efforts to backdoor encryption, he's wasting the time of lots and lots of smart people who should be focusing on making our communications more secure, rather than proving to Comey and elected officials how ridiculously short-sighted it is to make communications less secure.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>that's-the-spirithttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20150708/17034631585Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:59:00 PDTHow The Patent Office Outsourced Its Job To Non-Expert JurorsMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100830/13013910826.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100830/13013910826.shtmlalready wrote about Larry Downes blog post suggesting that Paul Allen's patent lawsuits might actually be an attempt to expose problems with the patent system, but I wanted to discuss a different point Downes raised earlier in the post, in discussing the problems of the patent system. Obviously, we've discussed many ways in which the patent system today fails to do what it's supposed to do, and a big part of the problem is the fact that the USPTO seems to approve a ton of crappy patents. This isn't because the examiners aren't trying hard, but just because the very nature of the system, and its inherent lack of scalability, mean the incentives are always going to lead to approvals of bad patents.

But what does this mean in practice? Downes highlights the problem this causes in a very simple way: it's the USPTO outsourcing the patent review process to unskilled juries:

The result has been the creation of a shadow patent examination process through litigation. The grant of a patent is no longer the final step, in other words. The de facto examination really takes place when the holder tries to enforce the patent against an alleged infringer, and the defendant claims invalidity of the patent as a defense. When such cases go to trial, which they rarely do, a jury of laymen are then tasked with doing the work avoided by the patent examiner.

In effect, the patent office has outsourced its job to the judiciary and in particular to a jury of non-experts. If nothing else, that is a feature of the modern system that absolutely no one is happy with, or in any event that no one can justify.

This is a pretty big problem when you think about it. Already, there are concerns that the supposed patent examiner "experts" often don't have enough expertise to judge the non-obviousness of certain inventions. To then shift the burden to inherently unskilled non-experts to make that decision, even with advocates for both sides fighting it out in front of them, seems to go against the very idea that patents are supposed to only be allowed if they are non-obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art. Asking those not skilled in the art to make that judgment seems like a mistake.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>this-is-sadhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100830/13013910826Fri, 21 May 2010 13:34:42 PDTCan We Please Put The 'Amateur Brain Surgeon' Strawman To Rest?Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100517/1022599444.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100517/1022599444.shtml"brain surgery" myth, which usually was something along the lines of saying, "you wouldn't let an amateur or 'the crowd' perform brain surgery, so why would you let them create a reference book?" Of course, that makes a bunch of bogus assumptions. First, it assumes that there's some sort of equivalence between creating an encyclopedia and doing brain surgery. But that's silly. Second, it assumes that no one involved in Wikipedia is an expert, which is not true. In fact, there are some brain surgeons who patrol Wikipedia as well. Finally, it assumes that these kinds of services are based on everyone being on equal footing, rather than recognizing that well-supported content is what gets through.

First, would you trust a citizen neurosurgeon to remove your kid's neuroblastoma? No, you wouldn't. You would not trust a citizen dentist either for your cavities. Or even a people's car repairman.

Of course not. But most people seem to recognize the basic difference between reporting on something and cutting into someone's brain. And, many people also recognize that most reporters themselves are often not experts in the field they're reporting on -- and what participatory journalism and the internet enable is the ability for actual experts on the topic to take part in the discussion and reporting as well.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>please,-make-it-go-awayhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100517/1022599444Mon, 13 Jul 2009 04:03:00 PDTDoes The Mainstream Press 'Make' or 'Own' The News?Derek Kertonhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090708/1723035490.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090708/1723035490.shtmlPart I - Who Makes The NewsIn his recent post, Mike discussed how there is a two-way street between blogs and newspapers, in which both become aware of stories from each other, and both borrow ideas. Techdirt believes this is part of the free market for ideas, and that nobody can own news, but we contrast this belief with the mainstream media moguls, who rant about how bloggers "poach" the news from the newspapers, offering naught in return. There is a trend of major publishers talking about how they "own" the news they "made", even when they themselves are just reporting on stories that occurred to other people. If anyone made the news, isn't it the people involved? But news is really just facts, and nobody can "own" reality.

Continuing along the lines Mike laid out, let me introduce another group of people who often create a great deal of the content in mainstream news, but go under-credited in this debate: Analysts and Experts. When news breaks, or a general interest piece is planned for a mainstream publication, the reporters often seek the advice and opinions of industry analysts and experts. I know, because I'm often called regarding issues in the Telecom industry. The reporters will ask your expert opinion, some catchy quotes, and will integrate them into their story. However, oftentimes, I find the reporter is just starting the writing process (in 'research'), and actually doesn't know exactly what is interesting about the story. In these cases, I often spend half an hour on the phone with them explaining the background, the trends, the real scuttlebutt, the interesting aspects, who else they should talk to, what is "real" and what is spin (IMHO, of course), and who they can contact for an opposing view. Independent analysts also normally have less bias than a corporate PR rep. Often, I will refer the reporter to an article I've written or a Techdirt post on the subject. The eventual story occasionally follows my narrative quite closely.

Am I angry about this state of affairs? No. I think it's great. All I ask is that the reporter put a quote or two from me in the piece. I get some marketing exposure, and I'm more than happy to help them build their story in return. This is one way reporters do their job, and it IS useful and productive. One would guess that lots of stories are made this way. There is no problem with this, but there is a problem when the news organizations start to think they "own" the story. What they did was add professional writing, fact checking, additional interviews, but most importantly provided distribution and an audience - all of which adds value, but none of which conveys ownership.

Allow me to triple repeat myself: I have no problem with this, and in fact seek out opportunities to work with reporters. This is a system that works...right up until the publishers act like - nay, claim - they are the sole creators of the news and that bloggers are mere parasites. In many cases, the bloggers are just the same experts going straight to the market with their ideas. As an analyst, I know I can go straight to market, but I'd rather go through the NYT, because that's where the audience is.

Part II - Paywall Paradox:So what happens when newspapers go behind a paywall, and reduce their readership by 90% to the 10% of people willing to pay? What if, at the same time, Huffington Post, Techdirt, and WiFiNetNews all offer their stuff for free? It's not just the advertisers that will follow the audience: the experts want to go where the exposure is, where the readers are. If the mainstream media reduces their audience to a small fraction of payers, then analysts would have to revisit the cost/benefit of spending half an hour with mainstream reporters. If my contribution to their mainstream article is not indexed by Google, it does ME a lot less good. I want my quotes in the results when someone searches on "muni wifi" or "derek kerton". If they're locked up, they don't promote me, and I can't link to them.

Result: many experts will prefer to work with the free publications, where the larger audience reads, and where their quote is indexed by Bing and linkable. Subsequently, paywall newspapers will find sources harder to find, and less willing to spend time. Big media reporters are accustomed to everyone eagerly returning their calls within 30 minutes. That kind of enthusiasm follows the readership, not the newspaper.

Next step: guess where the writers will want to work...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>you-make-it,-we-bake-ithttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090708/1723035490Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:23:00 PDTPeople Tend To Follow The Advice Of Experts Over Their Own Common SenseMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090330/0212164305.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090330/0212164305.shtml"expert" decision making advice, reader ChurchHatesTucker points us to a new study that notes that people all too often stop thinking after being given "expert" advice -- even if that advice is bad. While the folks behind the study use this as another crack to make fun of economists who believe in rational behavior, I'm not sure they're right. What's more likely is that individuals are still acting rationally. It's just that they believe that the "experts" really do have more information/knowledge/wisdom about a certain topic -- and thus they trust it over their own info. That's still quite rational. The real question should be just how often the "experts" give really bad advice. The problem with the study in question was that the expert was giving bad advice that he wouldn't normally give, making much of the actual experiment kind of meaningless. This sort of thing really is only a problem if the experts frequently give bad advice.

Still, this probably isn't too surprising. We've seen over time that people tend to rely on any sort of "expert" input, even if it's from a computer (such as driving off a cliff thanks to GPS or believing a financial model that suggests the likelihood of massive subprime mortgage defaults is almost non-existent). It's not so much about going against common sense. It's just that we tend to believe the "authority" over common sense, because we know we don't have all the info that we need in many cases -- so, we assume (often reasonably) that the authority or expert is better prepared to direct us than our own common sense.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>rational-behaviorhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090330/0212164305Wed, 28 May 2008 14:16:11 PDTCablevision Might Be Better Off Not Talking To Newspaper ExpertsMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080523/0155081209.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080523/0155081209.shtmladmitting that the company knows very little about the newspaper business, but he's promising to "consult widely and seek advice from people who have backgrounds and are professionals in the field." To be honest, my first reaction on reading that is that doing so is the exact wrong thing the new owner of a newspaper should be doing. It seems like there are so many folks in the newspaper business these days who are still living in the past, trying to pretend they can bring back the glory days when there was no real competition. What newspapers need these days might be a completely different mindset, rather than one encumbered by the legacy thinking that has made it so difficult for many newspapers to adapt to the changing market.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>just-a-thoughthttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080523/0155081209Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:23:00 PDTIFPI Witness Used To Work For IFPI -- Is That Such A Big Deal?Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080424/190047940.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080424/190047940.shtmltaken a job with Warner Brothers after the investigation concluded, I suggested this wasn't as ridiculous or "shocking" as some made it out to be. As long as there was no additional evidence of questionable activities, switching jobs isn't that surprising. The industry has a long history of hiring former police investigators and prosecutors for its anti-piracy activity. That, alone, shouldn't be considered strange or questionable -- but a lot of folks immediately assumed that something nefarious was up. In fact, one commenter even accused me of being on the take from Warner. Given just how frequentlyI'vetotallytrashedWarner Music'sactivities (in just the last year alone), including the faux epiphany of boss Edgar Bronfman, this seems rather laughable.

However, it is important to recognize that not everything is a conspiracy theory, and not every move the industry makes is as ridiculous as it's made out to be by critics. Totally overreacting to these things doesn't help the case of those of us trying to help educate the industry on why their strategy of suing fans and blaming piracy for their own inability to adapt and grow is a problem. So, while I'm sure I'll get beaten up over it again, the latest report that an expert witness in the Danish lawsuit against The Pirate Bay used to work at the IFPI still doesn't seem particularly shocking or troublesome. TorrentFreak, who normally has excellent coverage, continually paints this news as "shocking." However, I just don't see it. It's not surprising that a guy who used to work on IFPI investigations would go on to work at an anti-piracy company. And, just because he does so, it doesn't mean that he's obviously biased on their side (I certainly don't think fondly of all of my ex-employers). The simple fact is that any expert witness has a bias. They're hired to help support one side of the case. So, of course he's going to present the IFPI's case in the best light. That's what he's paid to do -- and the court should take that into account. The fact that he used to work for the IFPI seems rather meaningless.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>it's-not-that-crazyhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080424/190047940Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:22:18 PDTDebunking The Wikipedia 'Brain Surgery' MythMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080415/013346850.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080415/013346850.shtml"repugnant" Wikipedia is (his viewpoint). After a series of emails back and forth, he trotted out the "brain surgeon" question, that seems to be standard fare among Wikipedia-haters. It goes something like this: "If you needed brain surgery, would you trust someone who was trained as a brain surgeon, or someone who learned brain surgery from Wikipedia?" An alternative version of the question is "would you allow a 'crowd' of people to perform brain surgery on you."

So let's debunk this once and for all. First off, no one would want a brain surgery based on someone who just learned how to do brain surgery from Wikipedia, but that proves absolutely nothing. No one would want brain surgery done by someone who just learned how to do brain surgery from Encyclopedia Britannica either -- but you don't see this professor freaking out and trashing Britannica, do you? Wikipedia is a tool, just like Britannica, and it's not designed to be a reference on how to do brain surgery.

The second problem with the "brain surgery" example is the suggestion that experts and the folks working on Wikipedia are somehow mutually exclusive. It's this idea that no one who actually knows anything inputs information on Wikipedia, and the only people who do contribute know nothing. That's pretty clearly been proven untrue, so it's difficult to take this complaint particularly seriously.

As for the professor in question, let's take a look at some of her other statements:

"People are unwittingly trusting the information they find on Wikipedia, yet experience has shown it can be wrong, incomplete, biased, or misleading."

This has to be one of the funniest statements she makes, because every point that she makes can be equally applied to so-called "expert" resources or publications. And, there's a pretty big difference with most of those publications and Wikipedia: with those other sources, most of them can't or won't be changed when the "wrong, incomplete, biased or misleading" info is found. That's not the case with Wikipedia. Furthermore, in a bit of pure irony, this professor doesn't seem to realize that by making all of these incorrect statements, she's showing just how little you can trust supposed "experts" in the first place. After all, she's going on and on about trusting "experts" over the masses, while showing that she doesn't even understand how Wikipedia works at all, showing her own wrong, incomplete, biased and misleading positions.

This isn't to say that Wikipedia is perfect. It's not. It's got plenty of problems. But the lesson that this professor should be teaching is that you can't trust any source by itself, and you should double-check and confirm any information you find, whether it's from Wikipedia, a supposed "professor" or anyone else. It's not brain surgery to understand such a lesson.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>please,-please,-please-make-it-stophttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080415/013346850Tue, 4 Mar 2008 10:10:00 PSTTalking About Tapping Into The Insight CommunityMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080303/190909423.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080303/190909423.shtmlthe details behind the Techdirt Insight Community, and IBD has now published the interview. The interview gives a good overview of the Techdirt Insight Community and the different ways companies are getting insight and analysis from the various experts in the Community, focusing mainly on how we help open up the market to allow companies (or individuals at companies) who might never otherwise have tapped into a research or analysis firm to get useful analysis from multiple perspectives.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>get-some-insight-nowhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080303/190909423Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:46:36 PSTAbundance And Scarcity In The Insight MarketMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080225/230900.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080225/230900.shtmltheory behind the Insight Community and the Smart Dossiers offering (which is a subset of the Insight Community), someone asked how my writings on economics fit into the equation. It's rather straightforward: In any market there are likely to be various scarcities and various abundances. You should always look at the scarcities as problems that need to be solved and the abundances as the resources you can use to solve those problems.

So, as we were building out Techdirt's business, working with various Fortune 500 companies to better understand various technology trends, we again began to notice an interesting set of scarcities and abundances. On the scarcity side, companies were really hungry for useful and actionable insight about their biggest challenges. At best, they could hire a big analyst firm or a big consulting firm, which would be excessively expensive, and often wouldn't give particularly useful information. In fact, it was a huge risk, since they would only receive a single answer, as if handed down from a wise man on the mountain, with no idea if it was accurate or not. At worst, they could have internal people try to do the analysis, often passing it off to a junior person to handle the work. Again, this would result in a single opinion (often from someone not very experienced) providing an important analysis that was also biased by coming from inside the company, rather than with an outsider's perspective.

At the same time, we were discovering an immense abundance in the ability to find and communicate with smart, knowledgeable passionate experts, many of whom we got to know via their participation on Techdirt itself, or via their own websites and blogs. At first we began to tap that group informally, to help us with the work we were doing with existing clients -- but we realized it was better to formalize the system, which is how we came up with the Insight Community, helping to eliminate the middle man and solve the scarcity (relevant, timely insight) with the abundance (lots of knowledgeable folks). The trick was coming up with a system that allowed the best, most useful insights to bubble to the top. In other words, figuring out not just how to connect companies to smart people, but to make sure that those companies could get the best, most relevant and insightful analysis out of the most qualified folks in that group of experts. To do that, we put in place a competitive system, that allowed experts in the community to compete to show they could provide the best insight. The end result has worked quite well, making it incredibly easy for companies, both big and small, to tap into this network of experts in order to get the best, most relevant insights into the challenges they face, gaining multiple expert opinions -- and doing so at a price the company gets to set.

Of course, while the "name your own price" model works well in some cases, it doesn't work for all. It can sometimes be an impediment for a company that knows they want something specific and isn't sure how much to bid for it. So, to help with those situations, we wanted to focus on common types of cases that the Insight Community was being used for and start to launch more packaged solutions -- the first of which is Smart Dossiers. Many of the customers using the Insight Community, had used it to get a straight analysis of a company. Sometimes of themselves (to get a quick snapshot of multiple outsider expert viewpoints), but more often of other companies they were dealing with: customers, competitors, partners, investments and investors. For example, we had one company use the Insight Community to create detailed "dossiers" on the company's top customer targets, so that its sales people could be better informed while calling on them. Another firm needed a competitive landscape of a new market it was about to enter, and was able to get a bunch of experts to all weigh in on the competitors in just over a week.

So, yes, we are putting into practice the economics that get discussed here all the time. It's all about taking an abundance and helping them "solve" a scarcity that companies desperately are looking for help solving.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>it-all-fits-togetherhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080225/230900Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:26:00 PSTLooking For A Few Big BrainsMichael Hohttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071114/003608.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071114/003608.shtmlTechdirt Insight Community, then you're missing out on plenty of chances to make serious cash for being smart. We've got a bunch of open cases looking for good analysis and there's plenty of money available to be earned. Just a few of the open cases, for example:

Another firm is trying to understand how the subprime mortgage mess is going to impact the technology business.

There are a bunch more along those lines. We're always looking for more smart, insightful people, so if you think you've got something valuable to add, apply to be an expert today. Alternatively, if your company wants to tap into a community of really smart folks, who can provide you with some of the most useful insight and analysis you can get, check out the details and sign up.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>calling-all-experts...https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071114/003608Fri, 5 Oct 2007 10:36:40 PDTIf You're So Smart... Why Don't You Prove It (And Make Some Money While You're At It)?Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071005/022948.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071005/022948.shtmlTechdirt Insight Community service that we launched earlier this year. If you're not familiar with it, you can see a quick two minute video explaining what it is. It's been going great, as the experts in the community have been providing fantastic insight to all sorts of companies worldwide, helping those companies make important strategic decisions, filling in key knowledge gaps and or (in some cases) helping to validate certain ideas and plans. It's been a great way for some really smart folks to get companies to listen to their advice, to find out about the challenges facing companies in their space, to validate their insight... and also to make quite a bit of money for being smart.

Some of the open cases are displayed in a running ticker on the front page of Techdirt.com, but in case you haven't been watching, here are a few that recently opened where top insights can earn between $400 to $600 -- as well as validate your own insights into these areas. If you think you have the expertise to provide valuable insight to the companies presenting these cases, feel free to apply.

Taking Jajah to the Next Level. Jajah's been getting plenty of attention this week for launching its Jajah buttons allowing any site to easily add a "click-to-call" option -- and for having that very same feature quickly banned on eBay who is apparently still grumpy over the Skype writedown. Now help Jajah continue to improve its product and marketing strategy.

There are a bunch more in the system, with even more on the way, so if you ever felt that companies should be paying your for all your smart ideas, why not prove it?